09 AFG ideas

ok not to brag or complain just asking and trying to get ideas, we are having a hard time trying to figure out what to ask for in 09, got newer apparatus, new scba's, newer TO and washer, got money saved to buy hose, new station, the list goes on, have TI cameras, got training trailer, what is everyone thinking about? Hate to think that we only poss. have 2 years left.

ok not to brag or complain just asking and trying to get ideas, we are having a hard time trying to figure out what to ask for in 09, got newer apparatus, new scba's, newer TO and washer, got money saved to buy hose, new station, the list goes on, have TI cameras, got training trailer, what is everyone thinking about? Hate to think that we only poss. have 2 years left.

How are you equipped for wildland firefighting? Wildland turnout and equipment is right up there on top with PPE.

thanks

thanks kurt and we got VFA grant 2 years ago for full wildland PPE for all members head to toe, and new shelters for each person, foam equipment is a good idea, missed out on regional communication grant and would like to update portable radios will work with SAA to put in for grant next year and see what happens, anyone know what they are allowing for a VHF narrowband portable radio? Tried talking dept into going with 5" instead of 3" but everyone (nearly) said they don't like the idea, i guess we need a large fire to prove we need it. THanks for the ideas.

We are going to ask for a thermal imager ( the first one in the entire county) and a foam injection system for our pumper. Probably a total amount of $13,000. Doesn't anyone know the limit on the cost for the TIC from AFG?

We are going to ask for a thermal imager ( the first one in the entire county) and a foam injection system for our pumper. Probably a total amount of $13,000. Doesn't anyone know the limit on the cost for the TIC from AFG?

Sounds like utopia

Sounds like you have been very blessed with grants thus far. Not trying to cause a stir here, but if you are having to ask what you might be able to get, versus performing a risk assessment and seeing if there any gaps, do you think perhaps you should not apply and leave the funding for those who are still hurting? There are many departments who do not have money available to send someone to professional training or otherwise do not have professional help for writing grants. This is the one problem I see with this program. Those who can afford to get the training get a leg up to get their piece of the pie. I am sure that there are many departments who have a small resource pool and do not have anyone who can put in the time to learn how to, and then wirte a good narrative. Again, not trying to start a stir, but trying to ensure we are all applying for needs and not just to see if we can stuff the trucks and closets fuller because we can.

sure

I hear you however we have done a needs assessment and the last part we have to finish is replacing a engine, which are average age is not to bad and we need a truck, but we are considered a rural dept and AFG thinks we dont need a ladder truck as a priority, and i dont know where you are from but most of the vol depts around here have newer equipment then we have as a career dept that provide 1st alarm assisgnment for there fires. I have offered to help local vollys write grants but they simply have gotten new scba, TO and engine and dont have time to write a AFG grant and most didnt apply last year, I totally understand your view and good luck, but it is a competitive process.

[quote=firedude801;1004927] There are many departments who do not have money available to send someone to professional training or otherwise do not have professional help for writing grants. This is the one problem I see with this program. Those who can afford to get the training get a leg up to get their piece of the pie. I am sure that there are many departments who have a small resource pool and do not have anyone who can put in the time to learn how to, and then wirte a good narrative. QUOTE]

Now don't take this in the wrong way, as it is not confrontational but meant to be informative to you. In principal, I agree with your assessment of "not applying if your needs have been met" however, what you are saying about "affording to be able to get training" is a misconception on your part.

As far as I know bc79er's seminars workshops are free of charge, as many have benefited from in here.

As far as my seminars go, I can give you hundreds of examples of departments that have never attended my seminars but, have at least been wise enough to call me and discuss their needs with me or let me review their work prior to submission. Yes, I charge for a seminar (I have to pay bills just like you) but everything else we do for departments, including; reviewing your work, access to my website, publishing an annotated guidelines document on AFG for the past 3 years, is all free of charge and has no doubt been directly repsonsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards to these departments.

Cost of tuition to an "agency hosted seminar" is roughly about the cost of replacing one helmet ( $299). Now ask yourself a question. Is it wise to save the money to replace one helmet, or should we spend that same amount and replace every helmet, boot, glove, coat and pant for every firefighter? How much is the co-pay for dealing with just one injury to your firefighters form not having safe equipment? Do the math here guy! The average return on investment, for tutition cost, is 100+ times what someone paid for admission.

Do you pay for an education in publci schols or college? Do you pay for the books, insructors time and training props to get certified to be a firefighter? Yes, you do! Why is this any different? This is responsible fiscal management of your available resources. Tell me one thing you pay for out of your training budget that practically guarantees that you RETURN money to your budget, tenfold?

Have you asked a business, a citizen, a bank or chamber of commerce to sponsor someone attending? Do you not think that these business folks or some member of your community would not recognize the tax saving advantage to them of having a fire department being successful in applying to recover their Federal tax dollars for the community? Have you conducted a simple fund drive to attain the funding to attend? Have you actually approached your board and laid out the cost benefit to them? My guess would be that, " no" your have not! You have not thought outside the box ( a critical skill for a successful grant writer) to solve what is actually a very small funding issue for you. My goodness I have even had many students that have paid the tuition out of their own pocket becuase it was a cheaper alternative than paying for their own turnout gear and because they wanted to truly help their fellow firefighters.

I am not wrong here as I have been there and doen that too ( in case you do not know I am also a retired public safety adminsistrator from a very small town) and I am quite sure that many folks in these forums would back me up on this train of thought. Your perception here is wrong.

Even if you never attend a seminar, why are you ignoring free help that is, and has been available to you, for the past 48 months? The only question that remains now is are you going to be smart enough to pick up the phone and call me? I am here to help but, you have to ask!

"There are many departments who do not have money available to send someone to professional training or otherwise do not have professional help for writing grants. This is the one problem I see with this program. Those who can afford to get the training get a leg up to get their piece of the pie."

The thing with this program is that you have to try. I have no formal grant writing training. I read this forum. thats it. I have been successful. Last year I sent Kurt a copy of my narrative to review and took his suggestions. Boom. Training money.

The bottom line is, you have to submit an application to get an award. We are a VERY VERY small RURAL department that has good gear and equipment, a safe truck (far better than the death trap we had before), and about to begin an aggressive training program.

Having read over 15,000 apps in the last 7 years from all genres of grants (mostly AFG related), I can testify that in many cases the reviewers gave a lot of credit towards apps that some would wonder how they got funded. Does it work all the time? No. But being a person that wrote a terrible rescue truck narrative back in 2002 (compared to what I can pull off today) that got funded, it's not about formal training, paid/free workshops or paid/free writing help. The more people around you learn, the more you have to learn to keep up let alone get ahead. Hence the reason I spend a ton of time reading apps just to learn, especially since I'm paying my bills by giving advice and writing apps. As much information as I give out, I need to stay ahead of everyone else, and I do that with a small thing called: motivation. Those that need and are driven to meet their end goals don't fall short too often.

Also not applying so someone else can get the funding doesn't work either. The program decides who is needy based on design. If firebill and 10 more like him don't apply, that doesn't mean firedude has a better chance. All apps stand on their own against the program's metrics, then those scoring highest get the funding. There are so many apps that a dozen not applying won't make a difference when there are 22,000 playing. It's like the Pro Golf circuit. Everyone plays the same course then at the end of 36 they pick the cut score. Some weeks it's 10 under, others it's 5 over. Just like practicing the golf game, writing can help minimize costly shots, but doesn't eliminate them or create them in the opponents.

This year there are more awards than in past years because people scaled back their requests a little to make them more competitive, and as a result the same pile of money goes to more people. So in a sense, it's working the way it's meant to. And with the emphasis on training survey questions this year, be thinking that 2009 is going to be a little more strict in that arena.

I've been to 1 of the free seminars several years back and that is it. The rest comes from here on the forums. I've learned more than I can imagine by reading these posts. I have also found that reading the program guidance in its entireity each year is probably the most beneficial thing a person can do.

This may be over simplifing it a bit, but this is what has worked for us.
1) create a needs list and compile dept. data. (# of calls etc.)
2) read program guidance when released to find out what they consider a priority that year.
3) return to needs list and make any (if required) changes to comply with PG.
4) start filling out application.
5) reveiw application.
6) submit application.
I'm no expert, but this has worked 4 out of 6 times for us. 1 denial was for the first year it came out (I was clueless ) and the other denial '07 was for the same pumper that we ended up getting a '06 supplimental award for after the app period ended.
Just my 2 cents.

We did part of our needs assesement last night and came up with a few items:
1)Station Generator - but hinges on whether or not the ambulance moves in and we have 24 hr staffing
2) TIC - what would be a good program to go with the TIC?
3) Training - looking at FFI level training
4) CAD - I don't think we can get enough peope on board for a regional grant and not sure how it would look going it alone

I do like the idea of foam. I didn't realize there was $$ set aside for it. I thought that foam may not have been eligible since it was expendable.

We did part of our needs assesement last night and came up with a few items:
1)Station Generator - but hinges on whether or not the ambulance moves in and we have 24 hr staffing
2) TIC - what would be a good program to go with the TIC?
3) Training - looking at FFI level training
4) CAD - I don't think we can get enough peope on board for a regional grant and not sure how it would look going it alone

I do like the idea of foam. I didn't realize there was $$ set aside for it. I thought that foam may not have been eligible since it was expendable.

All good for AFG Ryan with some reservations:

Station Generator- you are right 24 hour occupancy nad desigantion as a emergency shelter needed for that.

24hr occupancy does capture the priority but just like exhaust systems can be hit for just about anyone if sold well.

AFG will do foam buckets since it has over a 1 year shelf life, not in ridiculous quantities, and mainly it is for equipment, but will buy a supply that you demonstrate has been used in past incidents within the average year.

Used RIT as an argument for TIC in another departments app a few years ago. We already have a RIT pack. Could we use it for the arguement of having the second camera? One for the first in crew and one for RIT?

Used RIT as an argument for TIC in another departments app a few years ago. We already have a RIT pack. Could we use it for the arguement of having the second camera? One for the first in crew and one for RIT?

Yes. You want to have dedicated equipment for RIT so that would be a good argument for FF safety; one for fire attack & a second for RIT. If you do RIT for MA departments this also guarantees that 1 TIC would remain in the community. Same argument that I used to get 2 RIT packs for the department.

Wadded Panties?

I hate to be the origin of a panty wadding by the gurus, as I have personally received help from them all,either directly (email and phone) or by indirectly by years of reading this forum (or Chief grants etc).

Many had good counterpoints that they took time to do it without training (or with) and others should be able to do the same. I suppose I get really aggravated seeing area departments from one end of the spectrum to the other. One department keeps applying even though they have equipment they cannot even carry on their trucks. Other departments have applied little if any. The later needs help. Lack of enthusiasm or ability by the officers is preventing them from even having a chance. As an officer for 20+ years it sickens me to see those folks doing without when others they see have it all. It ain't Kurts or Brians, or my fault, but it is a problem.

I don't know the fix, but do know there is a gap. I am thankful that I have been successful several times with these grants and my members have all their basic needs satisfied. And yes, it has been with help from many hours of reading these posts and help from the gurus.

And one last panty wadding. I still maintain that if a department has all their NEEDS met, they should not be working to get more tax dollars. This is a good program, but there are folks who abuse it, simply because they can, whether it is for bragging rights, or they feel they are entitled. Examples like the one I mentioned where folks have more than they need will be a nail in the coffin of this program.

There will always be exceptions to any setting, and if someone has equipment they can't put on trucks then either they really need it and communicated that, or they lied to get the stuff. Both situations happen.

And you don't have to tell me about 'progressive officer ranks' that don't even bother applying, for lack of desire to change, or inaccurate perceptions. I deal with that every year like clockwork. Sometimes it's the other powers that be (mayors, council, etc) that won't let the department apply also, hence the reason I've polished up the negotiation skills. They come in handy in places other than grant apps. But just like horses and water, I can drop all the potential grant apps I can find in front of people and many still won't apply. Goes back to the old adage of helping those that help themselves, if they don't want the new and better stuff then so be it. Just like I teach in the workshops someone, somewhere needs what you need only has more statistical need and better arguments, so if they at least answer the questions they might beat you out. But if they don't apply or wing the app, then you will beat them out for the dough. Neither situation is anyone's fault, it's on each applicant to do their homework and not be afraid to put in the work. All properly designed and written apps get funded eventually, persistance is the key.

I'll weigh-in on the neeed for attending the seminars and/or for learning the nuts and bolts of application writing.

I did a week of Peer Review in Emmitsburgh last May. All I worked on was apparatus, and I didn't review any from my own state. That said, there were applications that I reviewed that I worked HARD to find them a couple more points, but because theye were so poorly written, the points couldn't be awarded. Applications with FANTASTIC need statements, but with no budget info. Applications for that new tanker which failed to discuss the impact on firefighter safety in day-to-day operations, but instead talked about the improved ISO rating (ISO is NOT an AFG goal!). And the list went on and on... There were also those applications that were clearly written to replace the six year old truck which had a full ashtray and needed an oil change, but they DID meet all of the requirements of the application process and discuss need, budget, affect, and benefit/cost. So how do you take points away from them? (Except in the "need" category?)

There are obviosly departments in need that have not taken advantage of what could rightfully be "their" money. But I can't write their application for them, and I couldn't add to their weak narrative in Emmitsburgh! They really need to be a little less penny-wise and dollar foolish, and get the application writing training that they really need! In the mean-time departments with lesser need (I didn't say no need), but better applications will continue to get the awards.